Debbie Abrahams
MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on not just the content, but the tone of his delivery. He has elevated the status of not just this Parliament and this Government, but this country, by ensuring that everybody—all states and all individuals—are seen as equal before the law and in terms of human rights.”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. I particularly agree with what he was saying about social security and tackling the drivers of the high rates of young people not in education, employment or training.”
“] I have just about half a minute left, if that is convenient, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Committee recommends a more holistic approach to future assessments. The Department should consider the cumulative impact of policies on individuals.”
“We also heard that almost half of people aged 60 to 66 in the lowest income quintile were already classified as frail. These are people who are vulnerable to deterioration in physical and cognitive functioning.”
“The evidence that we received was clear: financial resources, the capacity to work, and good health help people manage the transition to a higher state pension age. However, many people reach their early 60s in poor health and unable to work, after years in low-paid and often physically demanding work.”
“There are other reasons why people leave work before state pension age, including becoming family carers. On the flip side, we heard about older workers who wanted to work but could not find a suitable job, and people who had left employment because of illness or caring responsibilities and could not get back into work.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Debbie Abrahams, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“] I have just about half a minute left, if that is convenient, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Committee recommends a more holistic approach to future assessments. The Department should consider the cumulative impact of policies on individuals. It should use evidence that reflects employment history, occupational class, health status, caring history, income and protected characteristics. It should consult the chief medical officer on health impacts. It should estimate likely poverty increases in time to act before they happen. I also mention the importance of communication. Not everybody is aware of the increase to 67, and we know from previous pension policy the impact that can have on people. Finally, I express my concern about the irresponsible rumours of a potential acceleration of the further increase in the state pension age.”
“We think those assessments are now outdated and insufficient. They do not reflect the recent increase in work-limiting ill health and deepening inequality in healthy life expectancy, and they do not provide a basis for understanding who would be most affected by the rise to 67. In 2023, the previous Government decided to proceed with the increase to 67, but said they would keep under review the position of people unable to continue to work. No such review had been published by the time of the 2024 general election, and the current Government do not plan to evaluate the increase until after it is completed in 2028. That is too late. They will have missed an opportunity to identify risks and put mitigations in place before any further increases take effect. [ Interruption.”
“We recognise that work incentives matter, but the proposal is modest. It is targeted at people in the year before state pension age. Many of those out of the labour market at that point are unlikely to return to it. The overriding priority would be to prevent hardship that would otherwise be the predictable result of public policy enacted in the Pensions Act 2014. We also recommend that when the Secretary of State’s state pension age review commences, they consult on longer term support for those unable to work up to state pension age. That review should model costs and benefits, including the effects on work incentives downstream and on health and social care services. Our report also looks at Government decision making. The Government have relied on impact assessments from 2011 and 2013.”
“That is why my Committee concluded that additional social security support is needed. That is not an abstract concern, but a direct and foreseeable effect of state pension age policy. For people unable to work, the longer wait for the state pension can mean a year or more on inadequate working age benefits, a year using up savings or a year of hardship. We recommend that the Government as a minimum consult on an uplift in universal credit in the year before state pension age, with the aim of introducing additional support by the end of this year. We heard that such an increase would cost around £600 million a year, but that must be considered alongside the estimated savings of around £10.5 billion a year once the state pension age is 67, compared with if it had stayed at 66.”
“First, older workers need better support, healthier workplaces and flexible working opportunities. The Government’s current approach is focused on supporting later working, including through the Mayfield review, which the Committee wholeheartedly supports and welcomes. As we have said in other reports this year, we wish the Government would do more to accelerate that work. However, it is unclear how many people would be lifted out of poverty by the Government’s current labour market measures. We hope that the Mayfield review will help in time, but it is a three to seven-year programme, and even if change comes quickly, it could come too late for many people who are now approaching the state pension age. Support to stay in work often needs to reach people in their 50s, rather than in their mid-60s.”
“We also heard that almost half of people aged 60 to 66 in the lowest income quintile were already classified as frail. These are people who are vulnerable to deterioration in physical and cognitive functioning. The Department has said that the poverty that pensioners and pre-pensioners experienced when the state pension age rose from 65 to 66 was mostly temporary, because people were lifted out of poverty as soon as they reached state pension age. However, temporary poverty can still do lasting harm—it can mean going without essentials and carrying stress into later life. Half of pre-pensioners are already frail; experiencing poverty, even temporary poverty, increases the risk of accelerating or exacerbating this deterioration in physical and cognitive function. These issues are not inevitable—they are solvable.”
“There are other reasons why people leave work before state pension age, including becoming family carers. On the flip side, we heard about older workers who wanted to work but could not find a suitable job, and people who had left employment because of illness or caring responsibilities and could not get back into work. Sometimes these people ended up having to draw down small pension savings just to get by before their state pension began. It is not generally recognised that the previous state pension age increase from 65 to 66 caused a doubling of absolute poverty among 65-year-olds. Our real concern is that the rise in the state pension age to 67 may have an even greater effect. The Committee heard that work-limiting health conditions among people aged 60 to 64 have increased from 28% in 2014 to 31% in 2024.”
“Many people experience disadvantages in older age as a product of a life lived in poverty, having few financial resources and having experienced insecure work and, often, poor housing. This poor health in later working life is reflected in different employment rates; for example, in 2025 only 42% of people aged 65 were in work. For those aged 66—the current state pension age—that figure fell to under 30%, less than one in three. However, ill health is not the only reason people leave work. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), told us that while poorer people tend to leave work before state pension age because of ill health and/or disability, wealthier people are more likely to retire early because they can afford to do so.”
“The evidence that we received was clear: financial resources, the capacity to work, and good health help people manage the transition to a higher state pension age. However, many people reach their early 60s in poor health and unable to work, after years in low-paid and often physically demanding work. As the Health Foundation’s recent report shows, since 2012 the healthy life expectancy—the average age someone is expected to live in good health—has fallen by two years, to 60.7 years for men and 60.9 years for women. Again, that is an average; in areas such as mine, a former industrial area, the healthy life expectancy for men and women is 56 and 58 years, so we can see the difficulties that the country is facing with this issue. Of course, different cohorts will have different healthy life expectancies as well.”
“The Committee recognises the need to balance sustainability, adequacy and fairness in our social security system as a whole, including our state pension system. However, fairness must mean fairness not only between generations, but within generations. Fairness to those who are least well equipped to build a secure retirement is equally important. Unfortunately, it is clear that disadvantage, ill health and frailty are not spread evenly across the country; they are concentrated in some communities more than others, and they go hand in hand with poverty. It cannot be fair to ask those with the poorest health, the fewest resources and the greatest risks to face the increase in state pension age without support.”
“Our reports have shown that people experience the effects of that state pension age increase unevenly. Our transition to state pension age inquiry asked a direct question: what happens to those who cannot keep working until their state pension begins? The Committee recognises the pressures on the state pension system. In 2005, spending on the state pension and pensioner benefits was 5.3% of GDP. Twenty years later, as society has aged, that figure has increased to 6%, and it is estimated that by 2070 it will be as high as 9%. Over half of all Department for Work and Pensions spending is spent on the state pension and, as I have said, this is set to increase as our society continues to age.”
“I express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to present this Work and Pensions Select Committee report on our inquiry into the transition to state pension age, which is a really important area for us to examine. Our inquiry follows very closely on from the inquiry we held last year into pensioner poverty—that report was published this time last year. During that inquiry, we identified the real health and financial issues facing many working-age people as they approach state pension age. This was particularly evident following the increase in the state pension age to 66 back in 2020, but as many—but not all—know, the state pension age has started to rise from 66 as of April this year, and will reach 67 by April 2028.”
“The Mayfield review came up with some good recommendations, which we thoroughly support, and I can direct my hon. Friend to other reports that made similar recommendations. It is important that we look at older people and not just people with health issues and disabilities.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for his really heartfelt statement—I think everybody here could feel that. Does he agree that we must recognise that a lack of empathy and dehumanising approach was adopted in this practice? I am minded that the statement “Don’t judge someone before you walk in their shoes” should apply. Unfortunately, in some service areas, we do not apply that principle, and it is demonising and dehumanising people. We need to recognise and support our common humanity.”
“As co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and I have written to over 43 organisations that have, or are suspected to have, previously been involved in unlawful expansion in the occupied territories. That was to warn them of the potential issues should they try to bid for these tenders. We have also been in contact with counterparts in Europe and Australia who will be doing a similar thing, and we hope that Members in the New Zealand and Canadian Parliaments will follow suit. On what the Government can do, the Minister has mentioned monitoring. Have the Government written to these entities, not just made a statement, to make them aware of their responsibilities? What will the Government do if they are found to bid for these tenders?”
“The Secretary of State has spoken of shifting from administering benefits to transforming lives, and we welcome that ambition, but delivery depends on cross-Government action and effective local implementation. This is not just about the DWP.”
“Improvements will only come if the Department is open, honest and willing to learn. The estimate seeks nearly £14 billion of additional resource, with much of that reflecting demand-led need. The central question is not just about cost, but whether the system is fair, timely and trusted. Reducing support at individual level is not cost-free: cuts to disabled people’s support in 2017 increased poverty and poor mental health without improving employment outcomes, and of course there are wider costs to the NHS and public services. Investment matters. Evidence suggests that reducing inactivity among young and disabled people by 5% could yield £20 billion, and that there are strong returns from employment support programmes, such as Connect to Work. Preventive investment is key. What should the House test?”
“I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. The Department for Work and Pensions supports nearly 23 million people and spends around £300 billion each year—around £1 in every £5 of Government spending. Some £164 billion is spent on pensions and pension-age benefits—a third more than the more-frequently-criticised spending on working-age benefits and on children—which has come under growing pressure from an ageing population. Debate about that spending has at times been framed in stark terms, but understanding people’s lives makes clear just how essential this support is. My Committee has consistently argued that, alongside efficiency, the system must treat claimants with dignity and respect, yet too many report experiencing the opposite.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister answered three questions in her response. What outcomes will this spending deliver? How will progress be measured? Who is accountable if delivery fails? The challenge is to show that the estimate is aligned with the scale of the problem, operationally credible and capable of delivering services with dignity and respect. Finally, I thank my Clerk and all his team for their excellent support for the Committee.”
“Incremental change is just not good enough. Machinery of government changes and local delivery models risk blurring accountability, so while local flexibility is important and place-based approaches are essential, outcomes must be consistent. Parliament must be able to see clearly who is responsible for delivery. The overarching issue is the lack of a clear link between spending plans and outcomes. While improvements have been made, scrutiny is weakened when Parliament cannot see how success will be measured. A clearer, strategic plan linking spending to measurable outcomes is essential. The debate is not about whether social security spending is necessary—it clearly is—but whether a Department spending £300 billion is using resources effectively, fairly and transparently.”
“Service quality issues persist; there are communication failures, discrimination findings and serious backlogs. The carer’s allowance overpayment scandal caused profound distress, and Access to Work delays are unacceptable. These are not marginal issues; they affect whether support reaches people fairly and on time. For the DWP, value for money must include timeliness, accuracy and trust. The most egregious failings relate to safeguarding. Last year alone, the Department undertook 90 internal reviews, including following claimant deaths and serious harm to claimants. Since 2010, there have been 10 prevention of future death reports from coroners warning that the systems must change. Our Committee has described the safeguarding approach as deficient. While some progress has been made, it remains too slow.”
“I am grateful for that intervention; long may that work continue. About one in eight young people are not in work, education or training. That is more than a million young people. It is the first time since 2013 that have we seen figures on that level. Ill health, and especially mental ill health, is a major driver of that. While programmes such as Connect to Work are welcome, with funding of around £820 million, they appear to be modest, relative to the scale of the challenge. The Government’s plans may support up to 90,000 young people into work, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed. The key test is outcomes—how many people move into sustained work. The accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions remain qualified, due to fraud and error amounting to nearly £10 billion in overpayments.”
“The changes that were introduced in 2017 actually caused harm, and we do not want to introduce harm that will make things worse for people; we want to make things better, and much more supportive. Do I need to keep going, Madam Deputy Speaker?”
“With the leave of the House, I congratulate the hon. Members for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) and for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on their maiden speeches. I thank all the Back Benchers who have contributed to today’s debate. I wholeheartedly support what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said about how we can transform people’s lives, and that is not necessarily by cutting individual support for vulnerable people. We must make sure that employment support provides an impetus for people, including young people and disabled people—there is still a 30% disability gap—and gives them opportunities. We can reduce social security spending by £20 billion by the end of this Parliament if we have some innovation and can do things at pace. [Interruption.] This has been a wonderful debate. I thank those who have contributed.”
“The programme should help disabled people to get genuine access to meaningful, sustainable employment on equal terms, but its success is not guaranteed. That depends on effective and consistent delivery, a skilled and supportive workforce delivering the programme, integration across services and sustained Government commitment. The policy is sound; the test now is whether the strong foundations that the Government have established translate into consistent, high-quality support in practice. That requires programmes and systems that work together to close the disability employment gap. I commend this report to the House.”
“As noted at the outset, this report is part of a wider programme of work. There is also our “Disability at Work” report. In addition, we have identified Access to Work as a crucial piece of the puzzle; it plays a vital role in supporting people once they enter employment, enabling necessary adjustments and support in the workplace. We therefore intend to examine it in more depth once the Government have set out their proposals for reform. Before I finish, I thank the Committee team, particularly Polina Eaton and Paul Owen, and everyone who provided written and oral evidence to us and attended engagement sessions with us. I believe that our report sets out a balanced assessment of Connect to Work.”
“For a programme of this scale, long-term certainty is essential, so that local authorities can invest in staff and the infrastructure needed to support delivery. That confidence needs to extend beyond the end of the current spending period. We therefore call on the Government to provide a clear statement of intent about the programme’s future. We also heard concerns about gaps in provision during the transition from the work and health programme pioneer to Connect to Work. In some areas, that left individuals with limited support at a critical time. While the Government have acknowledged these gaps, we are not persuaded that their full impact has been adequately assessed. This points to a broader issue, which is the need for better system-wide planning when programmes change.”
“Connect to Work sits alongside other national initiatives, such as Work Well. Its success depends on services delivered by numerous providers, such as those to do with health and skills. Integration, particularly with the NHS, is essential. Where systems are joined up, outcomes improve. Where they are fragmented, people fall through the gaps. Effective triage, clear pathways and strong local partnerships are therefore critical. This is not simply about programme delivery, but a coherent network of support. We recognise the significant investment that the Government are making, but we identified concerns about rigidities in financial management across financial years, and uncertainty beyond the current spending period.”
“There should be monitoring of outputs and outcomes. We welcome the steps that the Department has taken to address that, and the Committee will return to this issue to assess progress. Successful delivery needs skilled practitioners and specialist expertise. Some local authorities were confident that they had the necessary capacity, but we also heard of difficulties recruiting staff with the necessary skills, loss of expertise during delayed commissioning, and a wider shortage across the sector. Without the right people to deliver them, even the best designed programmes will not succeed. We therefore call on the Government to set out clearly how they will ensure sufficient capacity, co-ordinate workforce development and address gaps. Perhaps the most significant part is integration.”
“To date, delivery has not been without difficulty. We heard that early implementation has been more complex and more burdensome than expected. The Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged that aspects of the early process were “clunky and unsatisfactory”. Local authorities told us that delivery plan processes were lengthy and administratively demanding, and guidance was at times unclear or inconsistent. Finally, engagement by the Department seemed to vary across areas. Programmes of this scale depend not only on policy design, but on systems, processes and relationships. Early friction risks undermining confidence and delaying impact. In addition, more than £1 billion of employment support funding devolved to local authorities from Connect to Work for other employment support programmes this year needs to be clearly defined.”
“The programme is well designed, but success depends on delivery. A key feature is its devolved delivery model. Local authorities have flexibility to design provision based on local needs, but with that flexibility comes risks—risks to do with, for example, consistency of delivery; workforce capacity; integration with health, skills and local services; funding certainty; and managing the transition between programmes. We heard that different commissioning approaches can lead to variation in service quality and uneven experiences for participants. The Government need to find a balance between flexibility and consistency. The Committee’s central conclusion is that Connect to Work’s strengths will matter only if that translates into consistent, integrated and properly resourced support on the ground.”
“It is part of the Government’s broader welfare reform strategy to reduce health-related economic inactivity, a strategy that is both economically important and, more importantly, central to improving lives. The Committee is clear that we welcome Connect to Work. The programme is voluntary, grounded in well-established supported employment models, and combines national scale with local flexibility, offering scope for more tailored and responsive support. Models such as individual placement and support, and the supported employment quality framework, demonstrate strong outcomes in sustained employment, as well as in confidence, skills and wellbeing. These approaches are personalised, integrated with services, focused on real jobs and provide ongoing support. Connect to Work adopts these principles, which is one of its greatest strengths.”
“We found that barriers facing disabled people in workplaces are present across all stages and aspects of employment, from recruitment to workplace adjustments, employer attitudes and opportunities for progression. The report I present today complements that report by focusing on the support people need before entering work, or when they need help to get there. Our message is clear: closing the disability employment gap requires a joined-up system, not isolated programmes. Let me recognise the significance of Connect to Work, a major, evidence-based programme with real potential. Launched in October 2024, it is intended to support up to 300,000 people—principally disabled people—into sustained paid employment over five years.”
“The Committee’s inquiry on employment support for disabled people showed that there are multiple barriers to work, including features of the workplace itself, issues preventing people from finding and getting into work, and things making it difficult to remain in work. Rather than attempting to cover all those issues in a single report, we felt it would be much more helpful to produce a report on each aspect. We also hope to report on Access to Work once the Government have published their proposals for reforming that scheme, which we hope will be very soon. Our “Disability at Work” report highlighted the structural and cultural factors in workplaces that continue to limit opportunity.”
“Their skills and experience are being wasted—a lost opportunity for the individuals, their families, and indeed the country. Last year, the Committee commissioned an economic analysis of the potential savings in Department for Work and Pensions spending and returns to the Exchequer from programmes like Connect to Work, and how such programmes could make that difference. That analysis was modelled on previous successful employment support programmes, and the economists estimated that if 5% of currently unemployed or inactive people—including disabled people—moved into employment, that would generate £20 billion over the life of the Parliament.”
“With nearly one in four of the working-age population being disabled, equivalent to 10.4 million disabled people, it is quite staggering that only 5.5 million disabled people are employed when we know millions more want a job. It is a disability employment rate of 52.8%, compared with 82.5% for non-disabled people—a disability employment gap of nearly 30%. After historical falls, the gap has remained around 30% since 2012, and it remains above the OECD average. Disabled people and people living in disabled households are far more likely to live in poverty than any other group. The extra costs that disabled people face and the lack of employment opportunities are key factors. As most disabilities are acquired, many disabled people have been employed before becoming inactive or unemployed.”
“I am pleased to present the Work and Pensions Committee’s second report in our employment support for disabled people inquiry series. Our first report, “Disability at Work”, examined workplace issues impacting on disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, who I will now refer to as disabled people. These include challenges finding employment and then staying in work. Today’s report looks at the Government’s Connect to Work programme, an employment support programme that aims to reduce health and disability-related economic inactivity. One of our labour market’s most persistent and challenging issues is the disability employment gap.”
“Q5. I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, and congratulate my constituent Sir Kevin Sinfield on all the work he does.Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the murder of our dear friend Jo Cox. As well as being a sister to our wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), she was a wife, daughter and mother, and we must not forget that. Jo’s mantra was always that we have“more in common than that which divides us.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.] Will my right hon. Friend indicate what he thinks he should do, and in fact what we should all do, so that Jo’s beliefs and her legacy are always remembered?”
“T9. There is overwhelming evidence that marketised health systems, as the NHS has become, increase health inequalities. Will the Health Secretary consider amendments to the Health Bill that will tackle the rising inequalities in existing health policies, including allowing local NHS organisations to determine if they need additional private sector capacity?”
“What will be the consequences if they decide to ignore the guidance, and go ahead with becoming involved in these illegal expansions?”
“Last week, tenders for the expansion of the unlawful E1 settlements were launched, involving nearly 3,500 housing units, directly flouting international law and also putting the viability of a Palestinian state at risk. Moreover, as we have heard, on the 14th of this month there will be a real estate deal in London, which is about marketing the purchase of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank, including the Gush Etzion settlement—again, flouting international law, in this city. I welcome this morning’s updated and strengthened guidance warning businesses not to engage, and I welcome the additional sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, but we know that at least 43 businesses have been previously engaged in the expansion of settlements.”
“I welcome Alan Milburn’s report. The Select Committee is in the concluding stages of its own youth employment, education and training inquiry. We take account particularly of the drivers, and the Minister is right. As the millennium cohort study has shown, more than half of NEETs have experienced adverse and persistent child poverty and family adversity over the last 15 years, which has contributed to the current level. I really think that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), should recognise that and apologise. Is the Minister as concerned as me that we must not forget that, in addition to young people, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had a lack of opportunity, and they have not had the profile that our young people are getting?”
“Our declining healthy life expectancy, as underlined in today’s Health Foundation report, is a real worry, but as Professor Sir Michael Marmot has shown, that is no surprise after 14 years of austerity and its impact on our public services. There is the potential for a significant knock-on effect on Department for Work and Pensions spending. What conversations has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had with the Health Secretary on this issue, and is it being considered in the Timms review?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. For clarity, could he confirm to whom, and when, the UK Security Vetting report outcomes were made available? Could he also say what guidance is given to senior officials on matters that must be escalated to their Ministers?”
“I know that he has already done a huge amount on providing indexation, but members of the financial assistance scheme are a very elderly group; they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that were introduced, and there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it is difficult, given the appalling financial circumstances that this Government inherited and the difficulties that we face internationally, but I hope that when opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend will do the right thing by those FAS members.”
“Like Canada and Norway, I believe, we are in the 5% range, whereas Sweden and Switzerland are investing 10% in their countries’ investable assets. At the high end, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan are investing 20% or more. [Interruption.] I think it is my turn to speak. Perhaps we should reflect on how we are disadvantaged by that. I will support the Government today, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can clarify those points. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I want to briefly mention pre-1997 indexation. I know that it is not covered by the amendments that have been selected today, but it was debated in the other place.”
“I must say that I am slightly surprised by the shadow Minister’s speech. I understand that Pensions UK agrees with the asset allocation, and has welcomed the change that has been announced, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House accord. The accusations about the Government stealing pensioners’ money are just scaremongering. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene to point out how ludicrous that is, I am happy to give way to him. This is dangerous scaremongering, and given that the last Government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty, they should be ashamed of themselves. I hope that, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend will make clear where the UK stands on pension providers’ investments in UK assets. It seems that we are quite low in the rankings.”
“Going back to the asset aspect of the debate, I came across some new analysis from the New Financial that shows that over the last 10 years UK equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%. It argues that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance. It argues that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with or better than the performance that most pension providers managed to deliver. That makes the Minister’s argument for him, but I wonder if he wants to comment on it?”
“I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all that he is doing towards de-escalating the conflict in the middle east. I agree with him that we should not get drawn into the conflict. May I ask him about Palestine, and the west bank in particular? More than 30 former UK ambassadors have said that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement expansions should see their business interests in and with the UK endangered. Does he agree?”
“Q3. I thank the Prime Minister for the funding for three new primary school nurseries in Oldham, but may I ask him specifically about Monday’s Liaison Committee meeting, at which he agreed that the Israeli settlements in the west bank are unlawful and that their expansion threatens the viability of a Palestinian state? Will he confirm, as he said he would, that any potential bidder for E1 contracts from the UK knows that this is unlawful, and will he set out exactly what will happen as a consequence?”